Nearly 100,000 adults in England denied state-funded social care due to cuts | Social care

Nearly 100,000 adults have been denied social care funded by the government due to the division of a decade of discounts of spending, revealed an analysis of the goalkeeper, as ministers undergo increasing pressure to increase funding for the sector.

The analysis, which is based on a study by the Institute for Government (IFG), shows that the number of people in England receiving subsidized care fell much faster than the country’s disability rate.

The figures highlight how a range of government cuts has exerted so much pressure on the English social care service that it leaves tens of thousands of people without access to long -term care that they would have received 15 years ago.

Stuart Hoddinott, IFG associate director, said: “Financial pressure means that local authorities with high demand levels are forced to ration services to people who receive care elsewhere.

“This injustice is aggravated when the responsibilities of benefits adapt to friends and family, many of whom leave the labor market or reduce working hours to take care of dear beings. The government should ensure that local government financing reflects the need for services and that it does not transmit the care costs to unpaid parents. ”

The social care sector has been faced with financial compression since 2010 thanks to the reductions in local government’s budgets. The Institute for Tax Studies has revealed that the main budgets of advice is 18% lower per person in real terms in 2010, many cuts feeding social care.

With less money to pay the staff, the sector faced a job crisis, which it partly filled by the hiring of workers from abroad, many of which have been scammed or abused in the process.

Experts say that local authorities have rationed care by judging fewer people as needing that before and putting more people on short -term care plans rather than short -term care plans.

Meanwhile, the Westminster government has also limited access to care funded by the government by freezing the financial threshold to which people have been eligible for state support since 2010. The Labor government continued this practice earlier this year when it announced the rules of 2025-26.

The net effect of these changes was to restrict the number of people receiving long -term care, even if the population is aging.

The IFG report shows that the proportion of the adult population receiving long-term social care increased from 2.3% in 2003-2004 to 1.4%, an estimated decrease of more than 250,000 people.

This drop occurred almost entirely in people aged 65 and over. The report shows that 8.2% of the elderly received long-term care in 2003-2004 against 3.6% in 2023-24.

The Guardian used IFG figures to compare the number of people receiving long -term social care with the number of people living with disabilities, which, according to experts, is a good need for need.

The analysis shows that social care has continued to increase in accordance with disability rates, more than 98,000 additional people would be on the care plans funded by the government now that really.

Mark Franks, director of Nuffield Foundation, who also contributed to the report, said: “The social protection system is subject to high quality variations and a patchwork of stretched financing arrangements. These lead both to the rationing of care and great variations in quality and availability determined by the place where people live rather than the largest needs. ”

Part of the problem was fueled by an injustice perceived in the formula to allocate money from the central government to local authorities, which does not take factors such as deprivation. The government reported its intention to change until Friday, launching a consultation in a new financing formula which would mean less money going to richer advice in the Southeast and more to private and rural areas.

But ministers are also under pressure to mitigate the effect of the government’s decision to increase both the minimum wage and national insurance contributions for employers. The Nuffield Trust estimated that the two decisions will cost independent social care employers nearly 3 billion pounds Sterling in 2025-2026, the government now seeking to find additional money to compensate for the deficit.

The IFG report indicates: “The rationing of care is not without cost. The burden of reduced access to care can often fall to friends and family – mainly poorer people and women – who work to provide unpaid care.

“It is both unfair and indirectly expensive for the government, because these people are less likely to be able to work full time (or at all). As growing access to care can therefore support the government’s objective to improve the participation of the workforce. ””